As previously indicated on the About page we would update to provide further clarification of the activities that have occurred. We encourage you to read the About page first to understand the back story. It has become apparent to us that we have need to separate the actions done by Hillside and the actions of the staff. It is one thing to say an event occurred, but quite another to provide evidence that supports those claims. While we are providing some insight here, there is a lot that is being withheld for the time being.
The screenshots above show the phone calls made between the breeder and Hillside Kennels. The initial calls, with the breeder identifying herself and and identifying Asap as coming from her litter and seeking information about him. After the initial hesitation (rightly so) and citing privacy, Tracy Gibson was provided with ways to identify who Asap was, advised the breeder that she would be allowed access to him the next Wednesday. This was to allow time for the current “owner”, or the person that had possession of Asap last to come forward under minimum 72 hour stray dog hold.
The breeder advised Tracey that she could provide, documentation to support her claim, contracts, pedigrees, with over 2 and a half years of chronicled photo and video evidence of Asap’s growth and family. Tracey also advised the breeder at that time that Asap was being taken to the Emergency Vet. Tracey continued to explain, that after Wednesday the breeder would be able to get him back as an adoptable, but that she would also be responsible to pay vetting, pound fees and neutering. The breeder agreed, and thanked Tracey for her time and the effort being made to care for Asap.
The incoming calls were to update the breeder, the seriousness of Asap’s condition which included stab wounds, punctured/collasped lung, and an infection is the hemothorax. She also advised that there was a reaction to the sedative that was given to him at that time and that it was being reversed.
Following her own mentioned of privacy, if Tracey felt that the breeder was not the owner (attempting to hold her accountable for fee recovery), then she wouldn’t have been able to make these calls to the breeder.
The second shorter call was to confirm with the breeder, Asap’s name and the spelling.
The following morning, on Nov 6th, the breeder called Hillside to get an update on Asap’s condition and to inquire if there was anything else she could do. Tracey advised, that Asap made it through the night and would most likely survive, but in the next sentence told the breeder that should would not be getting Asap back. When pressed, the breeder brought up her concerns about Asap’s rehabilitation, and the resources to address any behavioral issues that may arise from the trauma he experienced. Tracy quickly launched into how her trainer was more than qualified and that, “Cassia wants him”. The call was terminated shortly afterward.
Within a few minutes, Hillside Kennels posted on their Facebook page that they renamed Asap as Marvin, and that were initiating a fundraiser for him. Attached to the post was a video, indicating that they were still looking for Asap’s family or owner.
These postings were absolutely dismissive of the idea that the breeder had been in contact with them and attempting to get Asap back home. Futhermore, in order for Hillside to fundraise, and rename the dog they would need to claim ownership of the Asap. Claiming Asap in less than 15 hours as property of Hillside Kennels, meant that they had broken a law that protects owners and pets, that animals must be held in 72 hour stray hold, unless for emergency veterinary care and only applicable for one night.
The breeder being confused about what they were attempting to do, commented on the post indicating she would be calling back again, and indicating his name was Asap. It was from this point Hillside had behaved in an unprofessional manner that incited and fueled attacks against the breeder. Without Hillside Kennels actions, the breeder was slowly accepting the idea that perhaps Asap was in good hands and in a good situation
It was in these direct lies and attacks, providing a platform and inciting others on their Facebook page, that drew even more attention to them to be scrutinized and questioned.
As you see in the above statements comments, their reasoning fluctuates and they are posted with the intent of attacking the breeder. These comments are based on judgements based on “opinions” rather than on facts. Such as the microchipping claim. A lack of microchipping is not ground for Hillside Kennels to claim ownership of a animal. Likewise, lacking a microchip is not proof of ownership. Yes, it helps, but it’s not proof. Considering that 1 out 10 dogs that go into pounds or rescues without a microchip, there are other methods for providing ownership. There are a few other comments in there that are worth inspection however.
Such as the timeline of not knowing who the breeder was when they post about the Asap and the fundraiser. The timeline of phone calls show otherwise. The repeated acknowledgement of the situation indicates otherwise.
In regards to their claims of an investigation, on they advised the breeder they wanted to no part of. In one comment, they indicate there will be no investigation, changed to there is an investigation.
We can verify, there is no investigation initiated on their behalf.
1. In triggering an investigation, they would have had legal ground to “hold” Asap. This entire situation could have been avoided by making an announcement that there was a current cruelty or criminal investigation being done. They failed to do this.
2. When Ontario Provincial Police were contacted by the breeder, on two occasions, the constables would have informed the breeder that there was an active and current investigation and that the dog was being held, this would have been on record. This failed to happen. Rather, Hillside Kennels lied to the constables on both of those.
To initiate an investigation, it would be necessary to hold the Asap for an undetermined amount of time, which means that Asap would not be able to go to Cassia’s rescue, Sato Saved, when he recovered enough.
This comment made by Hillside Kennels days into these attacks. This is Asap. Screencap from their video with photos from breeders collection.
Cassia here providing more lies about the breeder, accusations that the dogs are not purebred
Further to the point that they are attempting to press on authorities and the municipalities, is that this is a civil matter between the breeder and her “ex”, when it is not. There was never any dispute about ownership of Asap between the two. The breeder never once, by phone or by email stated that the “ex” was her husband, that he won custody of the Asap in court, or implied the “ex” took him by force. However, this is the narrative that is consistently seen that Hillside and Cassia put across publicly.
In Hillside’s other comments, including saying that the breeders “ex” surrendered Asap, this should be particularly scrutinized. They are taking the word of man that carelessly placed Asap in this situation to begin with. They can not acknowledge the “ex” claim to ownership, if they are not acknowledging the breeders claim to ownership. Additionally, their contact with the “ex” happened well after they initially denied the breeder, and contacted him again later in the week. The only intention of using this as a justification, was to further incite the attacks against the breeder.
People that are familiar with dog behavior will understand the avoidance happening here in this video.
The mention of the sedative reaction, was only done because we had knowledge of it and it was stated in a comment as such.
And lastly, the claim they are not making money or profiting off of Asap. If they had allowed the breeder to claim Asap as he was, the vetting and other applicable fees would have been covered.
With the fundraising, they would make the vetting fees and because of “story”, they would have made a lot more on top of that. Below is the video posted by Hillside Kennels, indicating that the vetting has been covered. It was more beneficial for them to do this, rather than have the breeder pay those fees. This is the part that people don’t necessarily understand. If provided the opportunity to acquire Asap say, tomorrow, the breeder in would still be responsible and accountable to paying those vetting, pound and neutering fees. So again, who is making money off of Asap?